A book review, C.H. Pappas, In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5-7, published by Cross Books in 2014, and the book is 127 pages in length. One of the results of the current overwhelming dominance, one might even say tyranny of the modern critical Greek texts of the New Testament over the minds of scholars, even in conservative evangelical and reform circles, has been the rarity of works which attempt to defend disputed traditional texts. Admittedly, among the most disputed, and the most difficult for traditionalists to defend, is the so-called Koma Yohaneum, or the Three Heavenly Witnesses passage, found in the second half of 1 John 5-7. Many modern translations simply omit the verse's second half without even adding a footnote to explain its absence. see the English Standard Version. Into such a context comes a rare volume, C.H. Pappas' contemporary effort to defend the traditional reading of 1 John 5-7. Pappas writes as a pastor-theologian. He has served for over 30 years as minister at Collins Road Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida. His discussion is not pitched at a technical but at a popular level. On page Roman numeral 22, he says, it is not written for the scholar, but for the people who sit in the pews. Though it is clear that he prefers the KJV and advocates for it as an English translation, his defense of the Koma Yohaneum is not that of a KJV onlyist in that he defends the passage on the basis of the Greek text. Here is a summary of some of Papus' arguments for the Koma Yohaneum on external, internal, as well as theological grounds. He says the passage is admittedly not found in the largest number of Greek manuscripts, nor is it in the earliest manuscripts, but it is found in at least nine late Greek manuscripts. Second, he says, the passage is found in old Latin manuscripts, which Pappas associates with the Waldensians. which can be dated very early and demonstrate its antiquity. Third, the passage was known and cited by several early church fathers, most notably by Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine, and Priscillian in Priscillian's book, the Liber Apologeticus. Pappus defends the latter of these, Priscillian, in particular from the charge of being a heretical source. See pages 15 and 16. The Koma Yohaneum 4th was suppressed in the Eastern Church and therefore in many of the early Greek manuscripts it was suppressed due to the Arian controversy. The passage eventually came to be accepted and acknowledged as part of the legitimate text of scripture by the universal faithful church and was included in the traditional printed text of the Greek New Testament and in the vernacular translations which emerged from the Protestant Reformation forward. Sixth, in modern times, the Koma Yohaneum only came to be widely challenged and removed from the Greek text of the New Testament and from translations after the work of Westcott and Hort and the revision committee and its meeting in 1881. And he likewise notes that there was a Unitarian influence in this revision committee. Seventh, The Koma Yohaneum is even accepted by the modern Greek Orthodox churches as part of the legitimate text of scripture. 8. The passage can be defended on internal grounds. The masculine gender is used in 1 John 5.8, and this only makes sense grammatically if the traditional text of 1 John 5.7 is original. 9. The appearance of the passage as a marginal note in some Greek manuscripts can be just as plausibly explained as an attempt to correct a copying error of omission, rather than as an attempt to insert something that was not in the original. If the passage was not original, and it was inserted into the text by pious but misguided scribes who wanted to strengthen their argument for the Trinity, we would expect to find evidence of both Aryans and Orthodox Christians who would most certainly have protested against such an insertion. There is no record, however, of any protests. 11. The omission of 1 John 5-7 in the modern era came as the result of the application of modern historical critical method to biblical studies and to the development of source and form criticism. This modern method is not compatible with the traditional view of the divine preservation of scripture. Though firm in his defense of the Koma Yohaneum and clear in his rejection of the modern critical text, Pappus largely avoids ad hominem attacks and uncharitable outbursts. There are, however, still a few statements like this one. Quote, enough of the so-called early manuscript. They survived only because they were not used. They were not used because they were heretical. Burn them. That's on page 79. On the other hand, At the book's conclusion, he urges his readers who reject modern translations not to do outrageous stunts like burning modern translations. He says on page 97, this is utterly foolish. One might wish that some of Pappus' arguments had been more clearly and ably exposited. The author is primarily dependent upon a limited number of secondary sources. His arguments are often repetitive. There are a number of historical simplifications, overstatements, unsubstantiated claims, and even outright errors. For example, Pappas several times asserts that the Koma Yohaneum had not been at all challenged in the modern era until Westcott and Hort in 1881. For example, on page 17, he says, Interestingly enough, it was not until 1881 that the coma was ever questioned. In fact, however, the coma Yohannanum was challenged by intellectuals as diverse as Edward Gibbon. You can see the book by George Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esquire author of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3rd edition, London, 1794. to the work of Isaac Newton. You can see a book titled, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture in a Letter to a Friend by Sir Isaac Newton, published in London by John Green in 1841. In the 18th century, not to mention that we had these kinds of attacks upon the Koma Yohaneum from men like Newton and Gibbons. It was also obviously attacked by biblical scholars of that era. The first published Greek New Testament to challenge the Texas Receptus, including the Koma Yohaneum, was not Westcott and Hortz in 1881, but Carl Lockman's Greek New Testament in 1831. Despite the shortcomings of Pappas's book on a scholarly level, there remains significant merit in the thoughtful examination of many of the issues which Pappas raises and the pondering of questions that he poses relating to the modern omission of 1 John 5-7 from the text of scripture. The best challenges, in fact, are the theological ones, like this one from page 85, where Pappas says, the issue before us is obvious. It is not a matter of a preference for a translation. The issue is a battle for the Bible. If one text can be removed from the scripture, who is to say that another shall not be removed? The book is particularly welcome given that there are so few voices in our day who are asking these questions, raising these issues, and offering any challenge against the dominance, one might even say the tyranny, of the modern critical text.